448 replies to this topic

[OmniFail]

Does armor sharing drive wins?

MWO matches are won by destroying enemy mechs.
MWO matches are won by timing out with the most kills.
MWO matches are won by destroying enemy bases.
The best way to destroy mechs and bases is to focus fire.
MWO matches are won capturing enemy bases.
MWO matches are won by collecting resources.
The best way to collect resources and capture enemy bases is with speed and positioning.
No MWO matches are won by losing armor.
Therefore, MWO matches are won by focused firepower, speed, positioning, and not though the loss of armor.

I have seen games won without the loss of armor though base capture and resource collection. Although I have never seen it, it seems theoretically possible that an MWO match can be won by the destruction of all enemy mechs without the winning team losing any armor.

While I still recommend that the main force always stick together and position themselves well to better focus fire and the light force do as well, in such a way that they can capitalize on their speed and ability to position themselves; it appears to me that the concept of armor sharing does not drive wins because it facilitates the loss of armor.

Think with your tiny ape brain, before responding with your lizard brain!

Edit Log: Spelling. Changed "lose" to "loss"

Edited by OmniFail, 09 August 2019 - 12:16 AM.

[Shanrak]

You win the game by winning trades, you win trades by rotating in fresh armor mechs when exposing so the open component ones can still live and shoot back. There's proper armor sharing and then there's people who think armor sharing is staring down a firing line by themselves.

[Bombast]

A better way of putting it, probably, is that team-wide engagement wins matches, and part of that ends up being sharing armor. If you can get all 12 mechs on your team to be near-perpetually engaged in combat with the enemy, whether they be on a unified firing line, or in a flanking maneuver, or in a solitary sniping position, you'll be in a good spot.

To put it another way, you want to share your enemy's attention, not necessarily your armor. Because any enemy rotating to respond to flanking harassers isn't doing much damage. Assault mechs spinning in circles trying to find whoever's blowing holes in them from a sneaky position isn't doing his team any good.

[Kodan Black]

Sure, at a theoretical level you don't need to share armor, just like you should never miss a shot as that is wasted DPS. But the reality of a snowball game is that the more mechs you have alive the better your chances of winning. If I can have a mech at 38% armor but with all their weapons by trading some of the armor off of a mech with 97% armor that is a good trade because otherwise that damage likely causes some or all of that mech's weapons to be no longer available.

Deal with reality instead of perfect world scenarios that never happen.

[GuardDogg]

I try my best to share armor when have no weapons, ammo. The problem is getting in front of friendly fire, when doing so. Trying to get the apposing mech to focus on me, while a friendly is engaging it. It is a skill to look at for the team.

Edited by GuardDogg, 08 August 2019 - 12:08 PM.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

You can't always rely on quality trading or playing objectives to win matches, sometimes (especially in pugs) you need to push and be aggressive and in those situations rotating/sharing armour will easily win a fight since 8 mechs with red armour or open components can still easily beat 3 fresh mechs.

Your argument stands a lot better in the context of FP where quality trading is the name of the game.

Edited by QuakeRiley, 08 August 2019 - 12:41 PM.

[Feral Clown]

I don't know if you are trying to justify or defend hiding behind a rock or just trolling.

When people say games are won by sharing armor your ape brain should be telling you that presenting a target and drawing enemy attention or splitting focus is what they mean by that.

As well I am sure many of have seen an assault push in soaking up tons of damage allowing a team to not take damage while shooting all the guys shooting them. I am always appreciative of an Atlas leading the charge in the tunnel on Crimson for example.

If a guy is hiding whether it be lurming or sniping from Zimbabwe, people don't get the benefit of that other target, and a good deal of the time the team deprived of that will melt and the guy hiding will not be able to put out enough damage before they all die to be enough influence. This isn't always the case sure, which is I guess what all those dudes who do this are banking on, that one in a hundred game where they racked up tons of damage and won. This isn't percentage wise a smart thing to do and clearly there is more people who hate guys that hide, than there are people who actually think this is a good idea.

This isn't saying a lurm mech or snipy mech is a front line mech. Second line trading, peeking and poking, and skirmishing are in my opinion, and from what I have seen the best in the game doing, the proper approach.

[yrrot]

Even guys hiding behind rocks in the right places can still draw fire and distract firepower from the front line. If they are winning trades with 2-3 mechs that they can out range and keep pinned, it's even better than sharing their armor on/near the front. But it isn't by hiding behind the rock, it's by using the rock to eat some of the return fire while cooling down and playing actively. Poking out from a rock and dropping 70-100+ damage on someone, for example, draws a lot of attention.

Sharing armor at the front is a way to keep a push going and keep more firepower on the board when things aren't steamrolling. However, it doesn't really matter how much armor gets shared, the attrition that decides matches is in how much firepower is removed from the board. Teams that secure kills and prevent the other team from sharing armor win matches.

[Prototelis]

Health pooling is incredibly important.

[John Bronco]

Fully agree. I often find golf much easier as well when I can get hole in ones every tee.

[Mystere]

Shanrak, on 08 August 2019 - 11:34 AM, said:

You win the game by doing whatever it takes to win. Period

FTFY.

Prototelis, on 08 August 2019 - 05:17 PM, said:

Health pooling is incredibly important.

So is the concentration of firepower.

And as such, see above.

Edited by Mystere, 08 August 2019 - 05:35 PM.

[Feral Clown]

Mystere, on 08 August 2019 - 05:30 PM, said:

FTFY.
[left][/size]

So is the concentration of firepower.

And as such, see above.

You know you don't have to use your steering wheel for the forums right?

[Mystere]

Feral Clown, on 08 August 2019 - 06:06 PM, said:

You know you don't have to use your steering wheel for the forums right?

I gave away my steering wheel. As such, I do not know what the frack you are talking about.

Having said that, I'm planning to get a new and better one.

And maybe one of these:

[Prototelis]

Mystere, on 08 August 2019 - 05:30 PM, said:

So is the concentration of firepower.

And as such, see above.

Guess what becomes more and more difficult when there is less available health pool.

[Mystere]

Prototelis, on 08 August 2019 - 06:36 PM, said:

Guess what becomes more and more difficult when there is less available health pool.

Go ahead, show me a statistical model.

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 08 August 2019 - 06:57 PM, said:

Go ahead, show me a statistical model.

You first.

[Mystere]

Y E O N N E, on 08 August 2019 - 07:01 PM, said:

You first.

I'm not the one offering a definitive answer. He is, and by implication you as well.

So take a shot at it.

Edited by Mystere, 08 August 2019 - 07:09 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Mystere, on 08 August 2019 - 06:57 PM, said:

Go ahead, show me a statistical model.

Are you also the kind of person that says, "Prove to me Scientifically that Love exists"?

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 08 August 2019 - 07:07 PM, said:

I'm not the one offering a definitive answer. He is, and by implication you as well.

So take a shot at it.

You definitively stated that concentration of firepower is as important as the armor pool.

What you are hoping to achieve, here, is to see if you can sucker somebody into sinking a disproportionate amount of time to proof a scenario whose reliability has already been validated by demonstration for years. All so you can then get some smug satisfaction from flippantly dismissing this model in the end because the model has some error (no matter how trivial) and because you get a kick out of toying with people who are passionate about a game that you care so little for.

So I say again: you first.

FRAGTAST1C, on 08 August 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Are you also the kind of person that says, "Prove to me Scientifically that Love exists"?

She is exactly that sort of person.

Edited by Y E O N N E, 08 August 2019 - 07:20 PM.

[Prototelis]

Mystere, on 08 August 2019 - 06:57 PM, said:

Go ahead, show me a statistical model.

Why, you don't know how > < works?